Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Sinister? (Score 1) 482

The citation you mention did not have anything to do with the statistics I mentioned, but something to read regarding the industry as a whole. Unless you meant a citation outside of what you replied to. That source mentions released information from CDC which you can go read for yourself.

I'm trying to find any citations that go back to anything like the CDC to support your x/10,000 claims. They're just not there as far as I can tell. The link, for example, just looks like a crackpot rant with no citations. A few of the things that it references that I'm familiar with appear to be distorted or untrue, and others sound very strange and I can't find support for them outside of the self-reinforcing bubble of the "underground" health sites.

Lets go back to Gardasil. First, there are many potential permant side effects with the vaccine. Chronic permanent migraine headaches are one, sterilization is another, and chronic fatigue syndrome is another.

Yes, let's go back to Guardasil. Because the NHS link provided says no such thing There's no mention of sterility or chronic permanent migraines. There was mention of one case of chronic fatigue syndrome--a disease we really don't know much about and a disease which doesn't appear to happen more often in vaccinated teenagers than in unvaccinated teenagers. There may be some serious adverse reactions, but they don't appear to be common enough to have ended up on the NHS web site you linked to.

When you separate them out the numbers look pretty low. However if you have a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting any one of these things the risk from the vaccine is really 3/10,000 and not 1/10,000. Extrapolate that out further, and suddenly it's not a 1 in a million chance of something happening. This is basic mathematics and should not provide any challenge to you.

That's a great thought experiment to do with speculative numbers like "maybe 1 in 10,000" but it would be a lot better to do with real numbers like the ones we have from the trials and deployment of the actual vaccines. And I'm not seeing much in the way of real data to support the notion of a serious risk.

To go a bit further, the vaccine only prevents certain types of cervical cancer and not all cervical cancer. Claiming any number of saved lives due to the vaccine is simply fallacy.

The number I mentioned is the estimated number of cases attributed to HPV, not cervical cancer as a whole. This has the potential to be a big deal.

You on the other hand are advocating no choice and no education.

I'm advocating no choice in severe cases (say, polio). And I'm all for education. Like, show me the data that supports you claims. Not "my sister's friend talked to a guy on the Internet who got a vauge and difficult to diagnose disease whose cause is uncertain right after a vaccine." If that's the burden of proof, I just just go looking for a geocities site that claims that the polio vaccine gave a guy super powers. I'm sure there's one out there.

Let me extract that same advocacy and question from a different source here.

That link just reiterates all of the things I said (plus more) and notes that all of the evidence points to the HPV vaccine being very safe and the minimal risks are vastly outweighed by the benefits. In fact, it specifically knocks down the arguments you made above about Guardasil.

Since those risks are not _yours_ why not drop the "do it my way" nonsense and let people choose?

Those risks aren't always just yours. Polio is out there. It's almost extinct. Gone forever. We could conceivably never have another case of polio again as long as the last remaining folks get their shit together (with our help) and vaccinate against it. Then nobody needs the polio vaccine ever again. But there's a problem: Some places are poor and have crappy infrastructure and need our help. Fine. And some places have boycotted the vaccine. If they manage to bring back a critical mass of polio and undo that hard work, that sure does affect me and mine.

Don't want a flu shot? Fine. I usually skip it myself. But for God's sake, let's use actual data here, and let's all get it together and wipe out the really terrible diseases we have on the run. The work others have done to shield us from those terrible illnesses has caused us to forget exactly how prevalent and terrible they were, and we're doing really bad cost/benefit analysis now as a result.

Comment Re:Sinister? (Score 1) 482

Sure, the numbers will vary based on the vaccine, but that doesn't mean that your source isn't complete crackpottery and bullshit using made up numbers. That's my complaint. I'm less concerned about you eyeballing those bullshit numbers and rolling them into one rough "order of magnitude" number of how dangerous vaccines in general are. I'll happily grant that there are trade-offs for everything. A vaccine against a disease that's hard to spread and no more than a nuisance doesn't benefit you much, and if it has potentially serious side effects, it may not be worth it. But we're talking about stuff like polio. Polio isn't a minor ailment with occasional complications. Symptomatic polio is a crippling disease at best and at worst it's fatal. Paralytic polio had a mortality rate of 2-30%, depending on the demographic.

It was not, but took years to prove otherwise. Meanwhile many young women have become sterile and permanently damaged by the vaccine.

Let's dig into that a little bit. Where are you getting your data? Because the VAERS data seems not to show anything of the sort. It looks like we're talking about something that has the potential to prevent tens of thousands of cases of cancer per year and weighing it against a moderate to low probability of such scourges as "headache" and, granting your claim some credence, a vanishingly small probability of sterility.

To the second point again you choose a fragment to argue instead of what was actually said. We know that there are risks from the vaccine just like there are risks from the disease.

Sure. The problem is that we're talking about real numbers that can be compared. And your numbers are total nonsense. That means that while your reasoning is valid, your conclusion is simply wrong. If you had to choose between a 1/1,000,000 chance of death and a 1/1,000 chance of death, there's really no sensible argument for choosing the latter, all else held equal. In 1952, there were 58,000 cases of polio in the US, which is 3.7 in 10,000. From what I can find, the vaccine causes anaphylaxis at about 1/1000 that rate (worst case). It looks like vaccine derived polio is, what, 1 in 10,000,000-ish? So what factors are we considering here?

Comment Re:Flu Shots are Ruining Vaccinations (Score 1) 482

I am, by no means, anti-vaccination (very pro, actually) but you need to sell this on the benefit to the individual getting that vaccine, and not try to put responsibility on their shoulders for everyone else around them. How many times have you met someone who responds positively to being called an asshole to their face?

True, convincing assholes that they're being assholes and should stop is a touchy thing and has to be done carefully. But that's a human psychology issue. It doesn't mean they're not being assholes. We could use the same argument for giving able bodied people grief for parking in handicapped spaces. If their worldview is 100% self-centered with no room for reasonble concern for others (like, I don't know, "I have no responsibility to your children"), you either have to tactfully get them to realize they're being assholes or just live with the fact that assholes make the world a worse place to live.

Comment Re:Solution - Face-saving way out (Score 1) 482

They shoot you. Or they don't let your unvaccinated kids enroll in public school. Clearly the same thing. All punishment and reward is really just a special case of total nuclear holocaust.

And we wonder why certain peoples' philosophical frameworks make it impossible for them to handle the real world.

Comment Re:Sinister? (Score 2) 482

As others have noted, your statistics appear to be complete crap. Also this:

Polio is has been removed in the US due to both vaccination and increased sanitation. Even so, it's not "life threatening" it was crippling.

I suppose that's true in some sense, thanks to fabulous iron lung technology. Ain't science grand?

Comment Re:Regulation of currency (Score 1) 240

FDIC should not have existed in the first place, it is a moral hazard, where bank clients do not pay any attention what the banks do with the money.

Bank runs don't necessarily mean the bank was doing something wrong. It could just mean that depositors are worried that the bank might be doing something wrong. Or they might be worried that other depositors are worried. Or they might be worried about banks in general. The whole point is that self-fulfilling prophecies are even more problematic than actual banking problems, and the only way to prevent them is an insurance scheme.

Comment Re:Regulation of currency (Score 1) 240

That would be fine if money was all about flows and units of measure, but there are stocks of money and contracts specifying future flows as well. If one day a sandwich costs a bitcoin and a year later, a sandwich costs a bitbuck, roughly speaking, the value of bitcoin is up by a factor of a billion. That means that if you have a bank account full if bitcoins, you're a billion times richer. It also means that if you owe somebody bitcoins, you're a billion times deeper in debt. Inflation and deflation have real economic effects that go well beyond printing new price sheets.

Comment Re:Why single out Whole Foods? (Score 2) 794

Yeah, I haven't quite been sure what to make of the whole gluten free thing. I'm glad that people with real medical problems with gluten have a lot more options, but the the fad side of it strikes me as bizarre. If it suddenly became trendy to roll around in wheelchairs, we'd see a lot more accessibility for the handicapped. That would be a good thing. But seeing an able-bodied hipster giving a business owner shit because they don't have a ramp for his wheelchair would still probably grind my gears. A net win overall, but a very strange one.

Comment Re:Time to end the military industrial complex (Score 1) 506

Actually, it's worse in terms of cost. In pre1950s America, we weren't required to police the world or otherwise maintain a global military presence.

I think that's a big part of the complaint here. We really don't need to police the world. It's absurdly expensive. We've done it more and more over the past 50 years, and it's hard to see much of a payoff for doing it lately. Part of the reason we do it is because we can. So we're stuck in a circular game: We "must" police the world because we're the only ones powerful enough to do it. We "must" be powerful, because we have to police the world. Sooner or later, we're going to have to question the underlying assumption.

There are more countries today verging on superpower than back when we only had the russians to worry about. At a minimum, there's Russia -and- China, and China has the leg up in both population and economic growth.

That's a very generous definition of the word "superpower." The USSR was a superpower. Modern Russia spends a fraction of what the USSR spent in real terms, and it doesn't seem to be colonizing the world like the USSR did.

China could be a superpower at some point in the future, but they're still well behind us. They also don't seem to be acquiring territory all over the world like the USSR. In any case, China will eventually be a bigger economy than we are, and we're going to have to come to terms with that. If they want to outspend us on military hardware, they'll eventually be able to. They have 4x our population, so they'll reach GDP parity with us as soon as they're 1/4 as productive as we are. We might as well start planning for it. If our only plan is to keep outspending them 2.75:1, we're screwed.

I'd say that playing nicely with others, having a military strong enough to police our territory and core interests, and sitting on enough nuclear weapons to wipe out any aggressor is probably a better long-term strategy than trying to bury everybody else under the sheer weight of our spending.

Using the historical comparison, we should be spending more (or at least the same) than we were then.

Using the historical comparison by what unit of measure? We spend more than twice what China spends and almost six times what Russia spends. And that doesn't even count the amount of hardware we've already amassed over the years of exceeding their spending. How far ahead of the next biggest enemy do we need to stay? Twice as big? Ten times as big? What scenario are we preparing for, exactly, and what are we trading to prepare for it?

Slashdot Top Deals

People are always available for work in the past tense.